Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

Bashir al Assad wasn't a 'state' visit, perhaps. Probably just a simple shooting weekend, like eg Jeffrey Epstein had.

But israelis? Too evil. All of them.
No, as I pointed out, the President of the State of Israel was afforded a State Visit, which Assad was not.
 
Syria was part of the French Mandate.

Palestine was British run Mandate

This is all hypothetical, but could be, that Queen was not happy about how the Mandate ended.

Its why Im not of the its all about Imperialism point of view on the conflict.

There were Imperialists who thought backing Zionism was a mistake.

That British should have done , in later Imperial fashion, got reliable "native" people to ( under the patronising hand of the British ) be guided to self government.

Which is what the mandates in theory were about

Palestine was a Class A mandate. Which meant ( from a Western perspective) that self determination could come sooner. After some guiding by the victorious powers post WW1

So getting written into the mandate the Balfour declaration was something this country imo should apologise for. It went against what the Mandates were supposed to be about.

Just because the Queen was a product of that Imperialist mindset does not mean she would automatically support Israel.
 
Last edited:
No, as I pointed out, the President of the State of Israel was afforded a State Visit, which Assad was not.
Yes and as also pointed out, HMQ probably doesn't have much choice over state visits, what the government wants/needs, the government gets. But other visits, I suppose she gets a say. If al Assad was that kind of visit then she agreed.

Plus you know beyond this gay banter, consider 'sir' jimmy savile; I wonder how many dinners that disgusting creature had at her maj's table? I wonder how many times she laughed at one of his stories.

But israelis? Too evil. All of them.
 
Yes and as also pointed out, HMQ probably doesn't have much choice over state visits, what the government wants/needs, the government gets. But other visits, I suppose she gets a say. If al Assad was that kind of visit then she agreed.

Plus you know beyond this gay banter, consider 'sir' jimmy savile; I wonder how many dinners that disgusting creature had at her maj's table? I wonder how many times she laughed at one of his stories.

But israelis? Too evil. All of them.
You are trying to make a point based on an assertion for which there is not evidence.
 
Turns out these ISIS chaps love Israel and hate Palestine




Head of HTS was involved in ISIS and then Al Qaeda now a "moderate"

I don't now enough about ISIS or Al Qaeda to know if they have position on Palestine. Or what they think of group like Hamas who came out of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Considering HTS want to get off the western terror list and Israel has just bombed the navy and military I would suggest HTS have enough problems to deal with. So any support for Palestinians is not highest on list of priorities.

The attack by Israel was imo deliberately over the top show of power. Also potentially crippling armed forces of a new state of Syria for years So Syria in future has little in way of defence capability.

Another issue is that the Palestine Liberation Army ( which was not that independent of the state of Syria) sided with Assad and fought against the opposition.

So probably for those Syrians who opposed/ fought against Assad they have mixed feelings about Palestinians living in Syria.
 
Last edited:
"Syria" is not just the name of a state. Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine were also defined as being part of Syria. As the "S" part of HTS refers not to Syria, the existing state, but "Al-Sham", the Levant. or Greater Syria region, then the leaders of HTS would regard Palestinian Arabs as being part of the Syrian nation. Therefore it may feel that Palestinian political organisations have no right to an independent existance.
 
So, what is the difference between the settlers on the West Bank, who have settled there since 1967, and the settlers on land within the State of Israel from which Palestinian Arabs were expelled in 1948?
Replying to your post in the Israel thread rather than the Syria one to avoid a derail.

The point is to stop further settlements and encroachment and guarantee the rights of Palestinians. It may be possible to one day come up with a solution where some land in the West Bank is given back to Palestinians and some of the settlers are settled elsewhere.

But a solution cannot involve making all the Israelis simply leave. Not only is this never going to happen, but it would also in practise be genocidal.

I'm aware of how lopsided it seems to suggest trying to show Israelis that reconciliation is possible when they are behaving as they are, but if there is any hope it has to come from a critical mass of Israelis willing to try compromise. Talking about destruction of Israel merely plays into the hands of the Zionist far-right. There are Jews and Israelis who want peace and reconciliation but it makes their position a lot harder when their opponents can easily find things to make Israelis feel the world wants to see them destroyed and is against them because of who they are and not what they're doing.
 
Can you believe this shite

anti-irish-genocide-policy-adverts-v0-c7t788hnl67e1.jpeg


IDF Pr wing sprouting ballocks as normal,
 
They're not really doing themselves any favours with the lying all the time. Almost like finding a truthful and peaceful solution is not the intent. I watched the speech on Tiktok where he condemned the 7th Oct attacks. First comment "Why does he not condemn the 7th Oct attacks?" Load a ballix.
 
Replying to your post in the Israel thread rather than the Syria one to avoid a derail.

The point is to stop further settlements and encroachment and guarantee the rights of Palestinians. It may be possible to one day come up with a solution where some land in the West Bank is given back to Palestinians and some of the settlers are settled elsewhere.

But a solution cannot involve making all the Israelis simply leave. Not only is this never going to happen, but it would also in practise be genocidal.

I'm aware of how lopsided it seems to suggest trying to show Israelis that reconciliation is possible when they are behaving as they are, but if there is any hope it has to come from a critical mass of Israelis willing to try compromise. Talking about destruction of Israel merely plays into the hands of the Zionist far-right. There are Jews and Israelis who want peace and reconciliation but it makes their position a lot harder when their opponents can easily find things to make Israelis feel the world wants to see them destroyed and is against them because of who they are and not what they're doing.

Not clear what you are saying here.

West Bank is under international law illegally occupied land.

It's been accepted as such by UN. And in ruling of ICJ.

If it is two state solution you mean then the land that is being occupied by settlers will need to be handed back to Palestinians as its basis for a Palestinian state.

This has nothing to do with being genocidal.

Its about international justice.

If what you mean is a two state solution.
 
Can you believe this shite

anti-irish-genocide-policy-adverts-v0-c7t788hnl67e1.jpeg


IDF Pr wing sprouting ballocks as normal,

Obviously using memes to make a point is fucking stupid, but the statements overlaid on this stupid meme are both factually true aren't they?

 
Replying to your post in the Israel thread rather than the Syria one to avoid a derail.

The point is to stop further settlements and encroachment and guarantee the rights of Palestinians. It may be possible to one day come up with a solution where some land in the West Bank is given back to Palestinians and some of the settlers are settled elsewhere.

But a solution cannot involve making all the Israelis simply leave. Not only is this never going to happen, but it would also in practise be genocidal.

I'm aware of how lopsided it seems to suggest trying to show Israelis that reconciliation is possible when they are behaving as they are, but if there is any hope it has to come from a critical mass of Israelis willing to try compromise. Talking about destruction of Israel merely plays into the hands of the Zionist far-right. There are Jews and Israelis who want peace and reconciliation but it makes their position a lot harder when their opponents can easily find things to make Israelis feel the world wants to see them destroyed and is against them because of who they are and not what they're doing.

And btw the occupation of the West Bank is not just about settlement building. Its also about separation wall ( ruled illegal by ICJ) and a host of other restrictions on Palestinians everyday life.

Which constitutes an Apartheid system.
 
Replying to your post in the Israel thread rather than the Syria one to avoid a derail.

The point is to stop further settlements and encroachment and guarantee the rights of Palestinians. It may be possible to one day come up with a solution where some land in the West Bank is given back to Palestinians and some of the settlers are settled elsewhere.

But a solution cannot involve making all the Israelis simply leave. Not only is this never going to happen, but it would also in practise be genocidal.

I'm aware of how lopsided it seems to suggest trying to show Israelis that reconciliation is possible when they are behaving as they are, but if there is any hope it has to come from a critical mass of Israelis willing to try compromise. Talking about destruction of Israel merely plays into the hands of the Zionist far-right. There are Jews and Israelis who want peace and reconciliation but it makes their position a lot harder when their opponents can easily find things to make Israelis feel the world wants to see them destroyed and is against them because of who they are and not what they're doing.
I thought you might have seen the abstract of the article I posted on the Syria thread which indicated the zionist siege mentality is of long standing. I would be grateful for why you believe Israeli compliance with security council resolution 242 and other international law on the matter means the withdrawal of settlers from Palestine would be genocidal
 
Obviously using memes to make a point is fucking stupid, but the statements overlaid on this stupid meme are both factually true aren't they?

Don't you think what's happening is genocide?
 
I thought you might have seen the abstract of the article I posted on the Syria thread which indicated the zionist siege mentality is of long standing. I would be grateful for why you believe Israeli compliance with security council resolution 242 and other international law on the matter means the withdrawal of settlers from Palestine would be genocidal
I don't get it at all, how can removing illegal settlers from stolen land in accordance with UN resolutions be genocidal, no one is advocating their extermination?

By this zionist logic returning the Golan to its rightful and legal owner Syria would be theft.
 
Obviously using memes to make a point is fucking stupid, but the statements overlaid on this stupid meme are both factually true aren't they?


ireland denounced the hamas attack so is a bullshit statement to begin with and you posted the link to the UN definition of genocide yourself . I don't think it needs be refined just applied correctly
 
Nobody gives a fuck what I think, and I resent people pretending they do. For reference, here's a UN page on genocide.

Ta. So, according to that definition, it is definitely genocide. It meets all the possible behavioural alternatives (where only one is actually necessary) other than transferring children to a different group. And there’s no doubt that the mens rea is the desire to wipe out the ethnic group, as attested to by many statements by the Israeli leadership.

Glad we’re in agreement on the fact that this is genocide.
 
Back
Top Bottom